HoF Debate: Bill James - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

HoF Debate: Bill James

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Amazinz » Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:07 am

rainman23 wrote:Again, I don't want any misunderstanding, just because one guy commented on my post without actually reading it (ironic, considering a couple comments I've made about people forming opinions about James without actually reading him). Anything I said about ideas not passing muster referred to the unenlightened pre-James era, when baseball was a quaint old game, and fans weren't expected to think much.

Please, stop with the presumptions. Not only did I read your post I read it several times over. You didn't take your time posting that. There are sentences in the post that are barely comprehensible. I did my best and I apologize for misunderstanding. If you want to debate my opinions, knock yourself out. That's why we're here. But there is no need for underhanded jabs simply because you took umbrage toward something I said or the manner in which it was written.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby rainman23 » Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:25 am

Amazinz wrote:
rainman23 wrote:Again, I don't want any misunderstanding, just because one guy commented on my post without actually reading it (ironic, considering a couple comments I've made about people forming opinions about James without actually reading him). Anything I said about ideas not passing muster referred to the unenlightened pre-James era, when baseball was a quaint old game, and fans weren't expected to think much.

Please, stop with the presumptions. Not only did I read your post I read it several times over. You didn't take your time posting that. There are sentences in the post that are barely comprehensible. I did my best and I apologize for misunderstanding. If you want to debate my opinions, knock yourself out. That's why we're here. But there is no need for underhanded jabs simply because you took umbrage toward something I said or the manner in which it was written.


You're the guy who's flying off the deep end. I see guys slamming each other every day on this site, and my terrible insult to you? "Commented on post without reading it." Wow, that stings. That's quite an underhanded jab. Sorry if I was wrong, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt...your criticism doesn't really make sense if you'd read what I'd written. I'd like an example of those "barely comprehensible" sentences.
rainman23
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 937
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Mookie4ever » Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:18 am

rainman23 wrote:
Amazinz wrote:
rainman23 wrote:Again, I don't want any misunderstanding, just because one guy commented on my post without actually reading it (ironic, considering a couple comments I've made about people forming opinions about James without actually reading him). Anything I said about ideas not passing muster referred to the unenlightened pre-James era, when baseball was a quaint old game, and fans weren't expected to think much.

Please, stop with the presumptions. Not only did I read your post I read it several times over. You didn't take your time posting that. There are sentences in the post that are barely comprehensible. I did my best and I apologize for misunderstanding. If you want to debate my opinions, knock yourself out. That's why we're here. But there is no need for underhanded jabs simply because you took umbrage toward something I said or the manner in which it was written.


You're the guy who's flying off the deep end. I see guys slamming each other every day on this site, and my terrible insult to you? "Commented on post without reading it." Wow, that stings. That's quite an underhanded jab. Sorry if I was wrong, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt...your criticism doesn't really make sense if you'd read what I'd written. I'd like an example of those "barely comprehensible" sentences.


You may say that I'm sticking up for a fellow mod and it would be a fair comment since I will always stick up for them. That being said, I cannot decipher this paragraph:

rainman23 wrote:Before James came along, there was a book of conventional wisdom that everyone adhered to, and heaven help the manager who ignored that wisdom. Whether or not anyone had ever seriously that wisdom, or it could pass muster if you did, was beside the point.


You don't say with the "conventional wisdom" is and I just cannot figure out what "(w)hether or not anyone had ever seriously that wisdom, or it could pass muster if you did, was beside the point" means.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19486
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby rainman23 » Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:40 am

Mookie4ever wrote:
rainman23 wrote:
Amazinz wrote:
rainman23 wrote:Again, I don't want any misunderstanding, just because one guy commented on my post without actually reading it (ironic, considering a couple comments I've made about people forming opinions about James without actually reading him). Anything I said about ideas not passing muster referred to the unenlightened pre-James era, when baseball was a quaint old game, and fans weren't expected to think much.

Please, stop with the presumptions. Not only did I read your post I read it several times over. You didn't take your time posting that. There are sentences in the post that are barely comprehensible. I did my best and I apologize for misunderstanding. If you want to debate my opinions, knock yourself out. That's why we're here. But there is no need for underhanded jabs simply because you took umbrage toward something I said or the manner in which it was written.


You're the guy who's flying off the deep end. I see guys slamming each other every day on this site, and my terrible insult to you? "Commented on post without reading it." Wow, that stings. That's quite an underhanded jab. Sorry if I was wrong, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt...your criticism doesn't really make sense if you'd read what I'd written. I'd like an example of those "barely comprehensible" sentences.


You may say that I'm sticking up for a fellow mod and it would be a fair comment since I will always stick up for them. That being said, I cannot decipher this paragraph:

rainman23 wrote:Before James came along, there was a book of conventional wisdom that everyone adhered to, and heaven help the manager who ignored that wisdom. Whether or not anyone had ever seriously that wisdom, or it could pass muster if you did, was beside the point.


You don't say with the "conventional wisdom" is and I just cannot figure out what "(w)hether or not anyone had ever seriously that wisdom, or it could pass muster if you did, was beside the point" means.


You're right; sorry to both of you. I dropped at least one word there, and that never makes things easy. The complete phrase would have been more like "Whether or not anyone had ever seriously questioned that wisdom, or if it could pass muster if you did, was beside the point." I didn't intend to go into detail on what that wisdom was -- it's that "book" you constantly hear people refer to. The fundamental precepts of baseball, that we're all just supposed to blindly accept and adhere to. James helped change that idea -- he encouraged us to question everything. I think Amazinz and I are actually on the same side of the question of what sabermetrics has brought to the table, so I'm not going to dwell on that now, either.

Sorry if I confused anybody. Or certainly if I offended anybody. I'm done now.[/b]
rainman23
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 937
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:47 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:Bill James has never played professional baseball, never managed a team, never owned a team and until very recently has not had any position in a mlb team.

[Good stuff deleted just to keep the post short]

So should Bill James be in the HOF? No freakin way.


Amen.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:49 pm

James is the one recognized for changing baseball with math more than anybody. Whether he truly did or not is beside the point. He's in.
Chrisy Moltisanti
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1536
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: 6 feet under

Postby noseeum » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:58 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:Bill James has never played professional baseball, never managed a team, never owned a team and until very recently has not had any position in a mlb team.

The HOF categories are Player, Manager, Umpire and Pioneer/Executive. The only one that he even qualifies for is Pioneer/Executive. This is probably also the hardest one to qualify for since the pool of candidates is so huge and includes all executives, owners, commissioners, writers etc.

There is a grand total of one baseball writer in the HOF. Henry Chadwick elected in 1938.

When we evaluate whether players should be inducted into the HoF we evaluate them against their peers and standards set by the Hall for their era and position. We do the same with the Pioneers/Executives category.

With this in mind Bill James should be inducted into the HoF if you consider that he is the best/most influential baseball writer since 1938 and the second best baseball writer if not the best baseball writer in history.

Consider that none of George Daley, Dan Daniel (the Dean of American Baseball Writers), Wil Heinz, Len Koppett, Shirley Povich, Red Smith and WP Kinsella are in the HOF. You would have to say that James is better/more influential than any of these prestigious writers in order to elect him into the HOF.

The Baseball Writers of America give out an annual award for for meritorious contributions to baseball writing, the JG Taylor Spink award - Bill James has never won the award and it has been awarded yearly since 1962.

So should Bill James be in the HOF? No freakin way.


I think it's pretty hilarious to think we should be looking for "stats" in the pioneer category.

"This guy won three Taylor Spink's and came in second four times! He's in."

Not poking fun. Just laughing at the hypothetical scenario of voting in pioneers.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby ukrneal » Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:28 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:With this in mind Bill James should be inducted into the HoF if you consider that he is the best/most influential baseball writer since 1938 and the second best baseball writer if not the best baseball writer in history.

Consider that none of George Daley, Dan Daniel (the Dean of American Baseball Writers), Wil Heinz, Len Koppett, Shirley Povich, Red Smith and WP Kinsella are in the HOF. You would have to say that James is better/more influential than any of these prestigious writers in order to elect him into the HOF.


James is not just your typical beat writer or tv sports personality. Not sure why you lumped them all togehter But James IS one of the most influential baseball personalities of the last 30 years. Hard to argue with that even if you dislike him.

As to your list, never heard of them (although I know a Daley who is a sports riter). Have they done something that merits being in? I'd be interested to hear more. See, James, to me, merits it (although I'm not losing sleep about it one way or another). I simply look at what he has done and see an overwhelming case to support him.
ukrneal
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2322
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby bigh0rt » Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:29 pm

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:James is the one recognized for changing baseball with math more than anybody. Whether he truly did or not is beside the point. He's in.


This doesn't even make sense.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24647
(Past Year: 821)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Postby looptid » Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:15 pm

Yeah it does. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Merit.
Image
looptid
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 668
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: St. Paul, MN

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deloresib16, dorisse4, jasminecn60 and 12 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Monday, Apr. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Baltimore at Boston
(11:05 am)
Kansas City at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
LA Angels at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
St. Louis at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Miami at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Arizona at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
San Diego at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
San Francisco at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Texas at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Philadelphia at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Houston at Seattle
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact